Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL

bugs.chromium.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

861–870 of 919 posts

Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL

#861

Post by jlarocco »

markovbot wrote: post #456
jlarocco wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it matters, quite a bit actually. My expectation as a user is that the URL I see in the bar is the URL of the site I'm visiting. If it's not accurate, then why show it at all?

Because the second level domain is far more important than the subdomain. The second level. www.example.com and example.com usually have the same contents, but are always controlled by the same group.

But the entity that controls the second level domain always controls all of its subdomains, not just www. Historically www has been a special case, but that's not a requirement and that's on the decline.

It seems like the confusion this change causes negates any benefit it could have.

Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL

#862

Post by j0057 »

masswerk wrote: post #688
pests wrote: post #682

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't even know how many cylinders I have!* Why should I care? Put key in. Press gas down. Car goes forward. Works for me. "How do you not know that?" Why would I need to know this? Why do I need to know what a cylinder is to drive? Is this even a logical question with electric cars now? You are arguing what should be vs. what is. * Well, I don't currently drive but I couldn't tell you with 100% accuracy the number…

I guess, the simile isn't entirely on the same level. You may not know how many cylinders there are in your car, like you may not know the number of cores in the CPU of your computer. They are both essentially hidden. But you do know how many pedals there are in the car and probably, how many switches there are for the lights, and that the wiper has different steps of speed etc. You even manage to control these few e…

> Is it, because we're telling them so?

Anti-intellectualism runs deep in our society.

Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL

#863

Post by krn »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #857
krn wrote: post #855

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If after, then the content isn't "served from a single company's database" anymore; it's served using a decentralized and open standard for cross-origin server push. Does this mean that Google will no longer rank higher those, who implement AMP and serve through Google Cache, than those who don't?

Yes. https://amphtml.wordpress.com/2018/03/08/standardizing-lesso... > Based on what we learned from AMP, we now feel ready to take the next step and work to support more instant-loading content not based on AMP technology in areas of Google Search designed for this, like the Top Stories carousel. This content will need to follow a set of future web standards and meet a set of objective performance and user experienc…

> So Google will probably still cache and push pages via their own infrastructure when you visit those pages from your Google search results

And that's what I mean by saying, that the entire web will be served from a single company's database, which already controls the browser and the search. You will be able to browse the web without ever leaving Google servers, and Google will be able to track your every interaction on the web.

Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL

#864

Post by com2kid »

Inityx wrote: post #625
com2kid wrote: post #516

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm in the opposite boat from you. Firefox on Android is nice, especially thanks to being able to install an ad blocker. Firefox on my desktop literally brings my entire machine to its knees, and destroys performance in all other apps that are open. Pulling that off while not even getting close to maxing out the CPU is rather impressive. :/

Are you using modern Firefox (v57+)?

Auto-updates are being applied, so whatever latest is, it just updated today in fact.

The only plugin I have installed is uBlock Origin.

Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL

#865

Post by jrnichols »

When people say they're sick of Google deciding what's good for the whole internet and leveraging their massive marketshare.. it's stuff like this they're talking about. Other little things too like their own non-standard implementation of IMAP/POP stuff. Invisible to most average users, who continue to merrily click away on Google $EVERYTHING and Gmail.

Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL

#866

Post by krotton »

eecc wrote: post #737
pvorb wrote: post #615

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it would be nice if every child would learn these basics in school.

Yes, learning to be good consumers is way more important than basic skills such as maths, reading, writing and general critical thinking /s

We do teach kids not to talk to strangers in the street and consider it quite important, I think. What's so much different about teaching them how not to get robbed on-line? It's not about being a good consumer, but about minding your own feet.

Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL

#867

Post by floatingatoll »

eadmund wrote: post #816
floatingatoll wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Low-tech users don’t often understand that a difference could possibly exist between “m.” and “www.” at all. However, if it shows the TLD, they can confirm it says “google.com”. Imagine they’re visiting a Paypal phishing link, to the domain: www.paypal.com.www.com The most important thing to show the user is “www.com”, because they’re expecting “paypal.com”. All the rest is nonessential for protecting users from bad…

> Low-tech users don’t often understand that a difference could possibly exist between “m.” and “www.” at all. They should. Children probably have difficulty with '6' vs. '9,' but they need to learn in order to use our number system. Likewise, users of the Internet need to learn the domain name system. Could there be better name systems? Sure. There could be better number systems, too, but this is what we have for no…

What difference is indicated by "news." rather than "www."?

Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL

#868

Post by floatingatoll »

boomlinde wrote: post #756
floatingatoll wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Low-tech users don’t often understand that a difference could possibly exist between “m.” and “www.” at all. However, if it shows the TLD, they can confirm it says “google.com”. Imagine they’re visiting a Paypal phishing link, to the domain: www.paypal.com.www.com The most important thing to show the user is “www.com”, because they’re expecting “paypal.com”. All the rest is nonessential for protecting users from bad…

Looking at the bug report, Chrome would actually show "www.paypal.com.www.com" as "paypal.com.com". At least Safari does the wrong thing the right way. Personally, I always want to see the full URL. It's fine if part of the domain, the scheme etc. are grayed out to emphasize the second and top level domains, but don't omit elements that are necessary to fully identify the resource because the lowest common denominato…

Yep, I verified that bug as well, apparently they never planned for "www" being somewhere other than at the front of the domain name. Sounds like they already know, woot!

Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL

#869

Post by Ajedi32 »

krn wrote: post #863
Ajedi32 wrote: post #857

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. https://amphtml.wordpress.com/2018/03/08/standardizing-lesso... > Based on what we learned from AMP, we now feel ready to take the next step and work to support more instant-loading content not based on AMP technology in areas of Google Search designed for this, like the Top Stories carousel. This content will need to follow a set of future web standards and meet a set of objective performance and user experienc…

> So Google will probably still cache and push pages via their own infrastructure when you visit those pages from your Google search results And that's what I mean by saying, that the entire web will be served from a single company's database, which already controls the browser and the search. You will be able to browse the web without ever leaving Google servers, and Google will be able to track your every interacti…

This doesn't increase Google's ability to track you at all. If you click a link on a Google search results page they already know you visited that site; them serving the initial page load via a cross-origin server push changes nothing.

It also doesn't give them any more control over the web, since the page contents are still strictly controlled by the original publisher (and that's cryptographically enforced).

So again, what's your actual concern?

Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL

#870

Post by jrnichols »

_kevinspencer wrote: post #856
vidarh wrote: post #755

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That time has never existed. Some did separate things that way, many did not.

That time absolutely existed. Was common. Source: lived through it.

yep. or ftp (or mail/smtp/whatever) was a single host separate from the web servers, and www was a CNAME to a virtual ip/load balancer.

Still separated physically.

That time wasn't even that long ago.

Post reply on HN